The fight over whether Rep. Eric Swalwell really calls Livermore home has exploded into a full-blown residency brawl, complete with sworn statements, a court challenge and a rival’s complaint crashing into the California governor’s race. At the center of it all is a rarely invoked five-year residency clause that could force either the courts or the secretary of state to decide if Swalwell is even allowed on the June 2 primary ballot.
Landlord’s sworn statement backs Swalwell
A sworn declaration filed March 6 and obtained by CBS News has Swalwell’s Livermore landlord saying under penalty of perjury that the congressman has rented and lived at her property since 2017, receives mail there and keeps significant belongings at the home. Swalwell submitted his own declaration noting that he holds a California driver’s license and has maintained an active State Bar membership since 2006, facts his campaign argues nail down his California domicile.
January court bid aims to block his certification
In January, conservative filmmaker Joel Gilbert went to Sacramento Superior Court with a petition for a writ of mandate seeking to halt Swalwell’s certification. The filing claims public records show a District of Columbia deed of trust listing a D.C. address as Swalwell’s principal residence and notes that his candidate paperwork used a non-residential Sacramento office, as detailed in the documents posted on SwalwellIsDisqualified.com. The legal challenge and its allegations were covered by FOX News. Swalwell’s campaign has dismissed the effort as a “nonsense” claim it expects to beat in court.
Steyer presses Weber, sparks privacy worries
One day after the new declarations landed, rival Tom Steyer’s campaign urged Secretary of State Shirley Weber to re-evaluate how the five-year residency requirement is enforced and called for robust proceedings to test Swalwell’s eligibility. That petition also broadcast Swalwell’s Livermore address, drawing criticism that it created unnecessary privacy and safety risks, according to CBS News. Steyer’s legal team warned that murkiness over a governor’s residency could invite legal challenges if a contested officeholder later tried to wield emergency powers or tap federal funds.
Neighbors, critics and allies weigh in
Some neighbors near the Livermore house named in the filings told the New York Post they had rarely or never spotted Swalwell at the property, a detail opponents seized on as proof he is more visitor than resident and supporters brushed off as anecdotal at best. At the same time, several House Democrats publicly blasted the move to publish a private address and pushed back on the challenge itself, a backlash reported by Yahoo.
Legal hurdles and the state’s own guidance
All of this collides with long-standing guidance from the California Secretary of State stating that the state Constitution’s five-year residency clause violates the U.S. Constitution and is unenforceable, language that appears in official candidate qualification materials. Because of that posture, Gilbert’s petition effectively asks a court to order the secretary of state to enforce the provision, a move that, if fast-tracked, would be the most direct path to a binding answer. The fight also raises thorny questions about who actually has the power to kick a candidate off the ballot and how quickly a judge could, or would, step in.
Clock ticking toward the June 2026 primary
The primary is scheduled for June 2, and county calendars show that mail ballots and drop-box timelines will be in motion well before spring wraps up. That means any court order reshuffling the ballot would have to land quickly to matter, according to local election resources. The election deadlines are laid out by Santa Clara County. Swalwell’s campaign says it will defend his eligibility in court and expects to prevail, leaving the courts and election officials to sort the whole mess out in the short window before ballots go out.
.jpg){kind=link}